the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Transport dynamics in a complex coastal archipelago
Abstract. The Archipelago Sea (in the Baltic Sea) is characterised by the complex geometry of thousands of islands and steep gradients of the bottom topography. Together with the much deeper Åland Sea, the Archipelago Sea acts as pathway to the water exchange between the neighbouring basins, Baltic proper and Bothnian Sea. We studied circulation and water transports in the Archipelago Sea using a new high-resolution NEMO configuration that covers the Åland Sea–Archipelago Sea area with horizontal resolution of around 500 m. The results show that currents in the area are steered by the geometry of the islands and straits and the bottom topography. Currents are strongest and strongly aligned in the narrow channels in the northern part of the area, the directions alternating between south and north. In more open areas, the currents are weaker with wider directional distribution. During our study period of 2013–2017, southward currents were more frequent in the surface layer. In the bottom layer in areas deeper than 25 m, northward currents dominated in the southern part of the Archipelago Sea, while in the northern part, southward and northward currents were more evenly represented. Due to the variation in current directions, both northward and southward transports occur. During our study period, the net transport in the upper 20 m layer was southward. Below 20 m depth, the net transport was southward at the northern edge and northward at the southern edge of the Archipelago Sea. There were seasonal and inter-annual variation in the transport volumes and directions in the upper layer. Southward transport was usually largest in spring and summer months and northward transport was largest in autumn and winter months. Our results demonstrate the complexity of the transport dynamics in the Archipelago Sea. No single transect can be chosen to represent water transport through the whole area. Further studies on the water exchange processes between the Baltic proper and the Bothnian Sea through the Archipelago Sea would benefit from using a two-way nested model setup for the area.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(6576 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(6576 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1547', Maria Matos, 25 Aug 2023
- AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Elina Miettunen, 08 Nov 2023
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1547', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Aug 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1547/egusphere-2023-1547-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Elina Miettunen, 08 Nov 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1547', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Oct 2023
Review of the manuscript "Transport dynamics in a complex coastal archipelago" by Miettunen et al.
General comments:
The manuscript is very well structured, of appropriate length, and has nice high-quality figures, in my opinion. Further, the text is very easy to read and contains relatively few grammatical or spelling mistakes. So, from this point of view I'm perfectly happy with the manuscript as it is. However, I do have a couple of specific comments regarding science; see below.
Specific comments:
You state in the Model Description (lines 78-80) that open boundary data are from a CMEMS physical reanalysis; can you elaborate on this? Which variables are prescribed at the boundary, and at what time resolution?
Later in the manuscript you state (lines 273-274) that daily averages are used at the open boundary. Surely, SSH data must be available on hourly resolution? How about currents? I'm a little bit concerned that the barotropic transports are affected by the use of daily averages instead of e.g. hourly data. To address this issue, I propose you validate sealevels against tide gauge data inside the computational domain, preferably one station in the south and one in the north, and perhaps validate the differences between these two (model vs. observations in both cases). If the lack of hourly data at the boundary affects the performance of the model close to the boundaries, the modelled transports may still be okay in the inner domain due to the filtering effect of the archipelago, and you may be able to show this in case you have at least one tide gauge in the inner part of the domain (e.g. Turku?). This may be enough if there are no suitable tide gauges near the northern and southern boundaries. If this is not possible, there will be some lingering doubts about the validity of the model setup with the boundary conditions being used (daily averages), and in extension, the conclusions.
As an alternative, would it be possible to rerun the model for a short time period using hourly resolution of the open boundary conditions, and compare with daily averages?
Technical corrections:
Caption for Figure 7: Please add the info that these are northward volume transports (as I think they are).
Line 184: It seems to me that the mean transport in the lower layer in the central transect is close to zero..? (green curve, middle panel)
Lines 253 (and other places): Change "Baltic Proper" -> "Baltic proper" (lower-case "p"). Throughout most of the manuscript you spell with lower-case "p", which is grammatically correct I think (though some authors use capital "P"). However, it is important to be consistent.
Line 313: Please check if this reference should perhaps be "Westerlund et al. (2021), as on github?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1547-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Elina Miettunen, 08 Nov 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1547', Maria Matos, 25 Aug 2023
- AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Elina Miettunen, 08 Nov 2023
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1547', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Aug 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1547/egusphere-2023-1547-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Elina Miettunen, 08 Nov 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1547', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Oct 2023
Review of the manuscript "Transport dynamics in a complex coastal archipelago" by Miettunen et al.
General comments:
The manuscript is very well structured, of appropriate length, and has nice high-quality figures, in my opinion. Further, the text is very easy to read and contains relatively few grammatical or spelling mistakes. So, from this point of view I'm perfectly happy with the manuscript as it is. However, I do have a couple of specific comments regarding science; see below.
Specific comments:
You state in the Model Description (lines 78-80) that open boundary data are from a CMEMS physical reanalysis; can you elaborate on this? Which variables are prescribed at the boundary, and at what time resolution?
Later in the manuscript you state (lines 273-274) that daily averages are used at the open boundary. Surely, SSH data must be available on hourly resolution? How about currents? I'm a little bit concerned that the barotropic transports are affected by the use of daily averages instead of e.g. hourly data. To address this issue, I propose you validate sealevels against tide gauge data inside the computational domain, preferably one station in the south and one in the north, and perhaps validate the differences between these two (model vs. observations in both cases). If the lack of hourly data at the boundary affects the performance of the model close to the boundaries, the modelled transports may still be okay in the inner domain due to the filtering effect of the archipelago, and you may be able to show this in case you have at least one tide gauge in the inner part of the domain (e.g. Turku?). This may be enough if there are no suitable tide gauges near the northern and southern boundaries. If this is not possible, there will be some lingering doubts about the validity of the model setup with the boundary conditions being used (daily averages), and in extension, the conclusions.
As an alternative, would it be possible to rerun the model for a short time period using hourly resolution of the open boundary conditions, and compare with daily averages?
Technical corrections:
Caption for Figure 7: Please add the info that these are northward volume transports (as I think they are).
Line 184: It seems to me that the mean transport in the lower layer in the central transect is close to zero..? (green curve, middle panel)
Lines 253 (and other places): Change "Baltic Proper" -> "Baltic proper" (lower-case "p"). Throughout most of the manuscript you spell with lower-case "p", which is grammatically correct I think (though some authors use capital "P"). However, it is important to be consistent.
Line 313: Please check if this reference should perhaps be "Westerlund et al. (2021), as on github?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1547-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Elina Miettunen, 08 Nov 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Data sets
ERA5 hourly data on single levels from 1979 to present H. Hersbach, B. Bell, P. Berrisford, G. Biavati, A. Horányi, J. Muñoz Sabater, J. Nicolas, C. Peubey, R. Radu, I. Rozum, D. Schepers, A. Simmons, C. Soci, D. Dee, and J.-N. Thépaut https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.adbb2d47
Model code and software
nemo-archs A. Westerlund and E. Miettunen https://github.com/fmidev/nemo-archs
NEMO ocean engine G. Madec and NEMO System Team https://doi.org/10.1186/s40562-019-0133-3
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
277 | 104 | 38 | 419 | 16 | 12 |
- HTML: 277
- PDF: 104
- XML: 38
- Total: 419
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Laura Tuomi
Antti Westerlund
Hedi Kanarik
Kai Myrberg
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(6576 KB) - Metadata XML